Quote:

---

LONDON (AP) - One teenager made offensive comments about a murdered child on Twitter. Another young man wrote on Facebook that British soldiers should "go to hell." A third posted a picture of a burning paper poppy, symbol of remembrance of war dead.

All were arrested, two convicted, and one jailed _ and they're not the only ones. In Britain, hundreds of people are prosecuted each year for posts, tweets, texts and emails deemed menacing, indecent, offensive or obscene, and the number is growing as our online lives expand.

Lawyers say the mounting tally shows the problems of a legal system trying to regulate 21st century communications with 20th century laws. Civil libertarians say it is a threat to free speech in an age when the Internet gives everyone the power to be heard around the world.

"Fifty years ago someone would have made a really offensive comment in a public space and it would have been heard by relatively few people," said Mike Harris of free-speech group Index on Censorship. "Now someone posts a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook and potentially hundreds of thousands of people can see it.

"People take it upon themselves to report this offensive material to police, and suddenly you've got the criminalization of offensive speech."

Figures obtained by The Associated Press through a freedom of information request show a steadily rising tally of prosecutions in Britain for electronic communications _ phone calls, emails and social media posts _ that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character _ from 1,263 in 2009 to 1,843 in 2011. The number of convictions grew from 873 in 2009 to 1,286 last year.

Behind the figures are people _ mostly young, many teenagers _ who find that a glib online remark can have life-altering consequences.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

LONDON (AP) - One teenager made offensive comments about a murdered child on Twitter. Another young man wrote on Facebook that British soldiers should "go to hell." A third posted a picture of a burning paper poppy, symbol of remembrance of war dead.

All were arrested, two convicted, and one jailed _ and they're not the only ones. In Britain, hundreds of people are prosecuted each year for posts, tweets, texts and emails deemed menacing, indecent, offensive or obscene, and the number is growing as our online lives expand.

Lawyers say the mounting tally shows the problems of a legal system trying to regulate 21st century communications with 20th century laws. Civil libertarians say it is a threat to free speech in an age when the Internet gives everyone the power to be heard around the world.

"Fifty years ago someone would have made a really offensive comment in a public space and it would have been heard by relatively few people," said Mike Harris of free-speech group Index on Censorship. "Now someone posts a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook and potentially hundreds of thousands of people can see it.

"People take it upon themselves to report this offensive material to police, and suddenly you've got the criminalization of offensive speech."

Figures obtained by The Associated Press through a freedom of information request show a steadily rising tally of prosecutions in Britain for electronic communications _ phone calls, emails and social media posts _ that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character _ from 1,263 in 2009 to 1,843 in 2011. The number of convictions grew from 873 in 2009 to 1,286 last year.

Behind the figures are people _ mostly young, many teenagers _ who find that a glib online remark can have life-altering consequences.

---

Full article here: http://www.wtop.com/256/3120267/In-UK-Twitter-Facebook-rants-land-some
-in-jail

Thank you Mr. Madison.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
We do, it's just there are some limits.

I'm actually a bit dismayed that this isn't more controversial though - I thought our traditions of free speech were stronger than this.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

I wouldn't have any problem, however, with a minor fine, as it seems to me for the most part the things I hear of having been posted are pretty disgusting. It wouldn't hurt if some hands were slapped, to maybe help make up for the lack of parental oversight/training which allows people to think the kind of sick shit I see on line is fine and dandy. I realize that's JUST my own opinion. I guess I'm saying people should be held responsible in SOME way for their lack of self-restraint. Just some small way; what I read here is appalling.

---

Quote:

---

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Aside from "one jailed" (JAILED??), it doesn't mention what the punishments are. Do you know, KPO, or any of our other Brits? While I might not find a MINOR fine offensive for such acts, anything beyond that would be unacceptable. I wouldn't have any problem, however, with a minor fine, as it seems to me for the most part the things I hear of having been posted are pretty disgusting. It wouldn't hurt if some hands were slapped, to maybe help make up for the lack of parental oversight/training which allows people to think the kind of sick shit I see on line is fine and dandy. I realize that's JUST my own opinion. I guess I'm saying people should be held responsible in SOME way for their lack of self-restraint. Just some small way; what I read here is appalling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I looked up the law under which he was charged, the Communications Act of 2003, Section 127.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents

Quote:

---

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

---

---